News Feeds

Coffee Watch and the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE) recently launched the Coffee Agroforestry E-Library. The freely accessible database compiles more than 60 years of global scientific research on agroforestry coffee systems. 

Coffee Watch finds that research has been scattered across journals and institutions, with much of it sitting behind paywalls. This forces researchers, policymakers, and farmers to conduct time-intensive searches to locate relevant literature. 

The e-library contains over 1,300 peer-reviewed studies, manuals, and technical reports. By consolidating decades of research into a single open platform, Coffee Watch and CATIE hope to make agroforestry evidence more accessible to governments, NGOs, industry actors, and farmers.

The database has also revealed opportunities for future research. Studies can often examine individual elements rather than holistic approaches, says Arlene López-Sampson, a lead researcher involved in developing the database. “Publications are focused on the implication of one variable on crop management or conservation, not the intersection of these variables on different dimensions,” she tells Food Tank. She adds that economic and social benefits of coffee agroforestry systems remain underexplored.

Coffee is the most widely traded tropical product and an important export for many producing countries, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Many countries depend on coffee, says Coffee Watch Founder Etelle Higonnet. “Without that money, they would not be able to pay for things like law enforcement. There would be system-wide collapse,” Higonnet tells Food Tank. But Coffee Watch notes that coffee supply chains have long been linked to environmental degradation, deforestation, and human rights violations.

To increase short-term yields, sun-grown monoculture systems that remove trees and rely heavily on synthetic pesticides have been widely adopted by major producing countries, including Brazil and Vietnam. Coffee Watch reports that these practices degrade soils and contribute to water contamination, ecosystem damage, and public health risks.

Monoculture further contributes to the climate crisis through deforestation, reduced carbon storage, and intensive chemical use. A study in the journal Climatic Change warns that the climate crisis may reduce the land fit for coffee cultivation by 50 percent by 2050. 

But governments and industry are promoting full-sun monoculture and pesticides, Higonnet says. “They are pulling farmers in the wrong direction,” she tells Food Tank. 

Higonnet views agroforestry as part of the solution. According to the FAO, these systems can improve biodiversity, resilience to climate stress, farmer income, and carbon storage. But Coffee Watch reports that adoption of these practices remains uneven. Transitioning to agroforestry requires support for farmers in choosing tree species to plant, accessing markets for diversified products, and financing the change.

“You cannot roll out a good agroforestry program at scale if you do not put people at the heart of it,” Higonnet says. “The human rights and environmental reforms that need to happen in coffee are indissociable.”

Many coffee farmers live on less than US$1.25 per day. And the U.S. Department of Labor reports persistent human rights violations across coffee supply chains, including child labor and forced labor in several producing countries such as Vietnam, Brazil, and Costa Rica.

Dependence on monocropping can reinforce this vulnerability, Higonnet says. “Monocropping keeps farmers hostage to the vicissitudes of market shocks and impoverishes them catastrophically if the price of coffee falls on the world market,” she says. “Not being able to do agroforestry means no income diversity and less food security for coffee farmers.”

Coffee Watch views the e-library as one component of a broader push for the sector to support farmers absorbing the financial risks of switching to agroforestry. Complex supply chains, limited traceability, and inconsistent reporting standards continue to make it difficult to assess corporate progress on environmental and social commitments. 

Coffee Watch plans to publish a scorecard ranking major coffee companies based on their agroforestry practices and policies. It will highlight strengths and gaps in publicly available sustainability disclosures while inviting companies to provide additional detail about their initiatives.

Higonnet notes that where coffee agroforestry research exists, it is rarely written for those implementing it. “The science is written to get tenure or grants or things like that, not to make sense to regular people or coffee companies, far less farmers,” she says. “The e-library does not make the information more digestible; it makes it more accessible.”

Over time, Higonnet hopes the e-library will be used by ministries of agriculture and farmer organizations to translate the science into more practical guidance that farmers can apply.

“The science is crystal clear: agroforestry coffee is a big win for farmer food security and income diversification, a massive win for carbon and biodiversity, and the best way to climate-proof our coffee,” Higonnet tells Food Tank. “We’re at the edge of a cliff, but we can walk back. If we care and if we act, we can make the world a better place with every cup.”

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Clint McKoy, Unsplash

The post New E-Library Expands Access to Global Coffee Agroforestry Research appeared first on Food Tank.

FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS’ legal obligation to consult and accommodate Indigenous nations has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada for over 20 years. The duty to consult is triggered when a government’s action may affect Indigenous Nations’ rights. An action that could severely impair Indigenous Nations’ exercise of their rights entails accommodation measures to mitigate negative effects. Additionally, British Columbia in 2019 passed legislation committing the government to align its laws with the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDRIP affirms Indigenous Nations’ right to self-determination, including the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) to make decisions that affect Indigenous lands. Prior to 2023, British Columbia’s mineral claims regime violated both the imperative to consult Indigenous Nations and the principles of UNDRIP. In the previous system, individuals or companies with a Free Miner Certificate could pay a nominal fee to register a mineral or placer claim through B.C’s Mineral Titles Online. These claims confer a priority right to subsurface minerals and the exclusive ability to pursue further permits to conduct significant exploration work. First Nations had no role in the claims registration process and were only consulted during the later permitting stage. This “free entry” system would have likely remained in place if not for litigation that challenged its constitutionality. 

Gitxaała vs. British Columbia (2023)

The Gitxaała Nation and Ehattesaht First Nation first successfully challenged the “free entry” system in 2023, with the British Columbia Supreme Court confirming that it violated the duty to consult. The B.C. government was ordered to reform the regime to implement consultation processes, which was rolled out in March 2025. However, it took an appeal to produce an additional ruling from the B.C. Court of Appeal in 2025 that confirmed the previous mineral claims regime was also inconsistent with FPIC, as incorporated by the B.C. government’s legislation. This judicial acknowledgement that the Mineral Tenure Act is inconsistent with Indigenous nations’ rights under UNDRIP must thus be addressed in subsequent consultative forums and reforms, which could be subject to future litigation. The B.C. Court of Appeal’s decision is being appealed by the B.C. government on the grounds that it is creating “confusion” over the legal status of UNDRIP in Canada (Depner 2026). 

It is worth pausing here to further examine the B.C. government’s position. The B.C. government accepted the need for reforms aimed at incorporating Indigenous consultation to meet both their duty to consult under Canadian common law and the standards of UNDRIP as affirmed in B.C. legislation. However, the B.C. government is challenging the position that inconsistencies between the Mineral Tenure Act and other B.C. laws and UNDRIP are justiciable. The B.C. government is arguing against judicial forms of accountability over how UNDRIP is implemented.

The rejection of judicial intervention over UNDRIP implementation would mean that only the duty to consult creates a justiciable standard of honourable state conduct towards Indigenous Nations, leaving UNDRIP and legislation affirming it to be treated as an aspirational framework.

A similar challenge by the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is being made to the Federal Court of Appeal after the Federal Court in early 2025 ruled that UNDRIP serves as an interpretative lens that changes the standards of Indigenous consultation. 

Legitimacy Deficits

Excluding the judiciary as a venue to challenge the state’s implementation of UNDRIP is the latest demonstration of the state’s preference for controlling processes of decision-making, particularly over land and waters. The evolution of the duty to consult is illustrative of what happens when the judiciary permits the state to use existing decision-making processes that simply integrate additional steps to include Indigenous consultation. In Process as Power, I analyze how the duty to consult’s obligations as outlined in Canadian common law permits Canadian governments to consult Indigenous Nations without adapting to Indigenous standards of good governance. The judiciary did not compel Canadian governments to restructure the process of decision-making, only that Indigenous Nations must be formally included in pre-existing models with the final decision-making power residing with a minister.

The consequences of perfunctory consultation are enduring legitimacy deficits throughout state decision-making, contributing to continuing Indigenous-state conflict and litigation. 

Such legitimacy deficits arose when B.C.’s mineral claims regime was reformed to conform to the duty to consult standard. In a six-month review of those reforms, a majority of First Nations survey responses revealed that they perceived the decision-making process to lack transparency and produce only weak accommodation measures. Despite formally meeting the duty to consult, these consultative processes overburden Indigenous communities to review numerous applications because no additional supports are provided (Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals 2025, 16); they do not clearly demonstrate how Indigenous feedback was considered and were even perceived to ignore First Nations (Ibid, 17); and they produce unresponsive accommodation measures (Ibid, 18). These results are striking because they closely mirror issues present in other decision-making processes related to reviewing industrial activities. Process as Power includes an examination of B.C.’s Environmental Assessment process and the same state-driven unilateralism permeates that forum as well. I trace how these deficiencies are tied to the ways in which the duty to consult case law over time permitted state-led decision-making designs while narrowly defining what Indigenous Nations can raise in consultative forums. 

Implementing UNDRIP?

UNDRIP fundamentally departs from the duty to consult standard because it presents an Indigenous-driven framework through FPIC that respects Indigenous self-determination. The fact that governments like B.C., Canada, and the Northwest Territories have passed UNDRIP-affirming legislation showed promising signs that reconciliation politics was backed by some action. But UNDRIP’s implementation was always going to be the real test of these governments’ commitments. In the context of the B.C. Environmental Assessment process, I find that reforms starting in 2018 have made some progress to improve the capacity of Indigenous Nations to review applications and to consistently respect the rights-holding status of Indigenous Nations. Other developments are more concerning, like how decision-making power continues to reside with a minister who is not bound by any party, including a new dispute resolution facilitator. Crucially, in this particular policy area, ongoing nation-to-nation negotiations are being pursued to advance additional reforms to uphold UNDRIP (Environmental Assessment Office 2025). 

Combatting the state’s asymmetrical hold over decision-making in matters that affect Indigenous Nations would be completely undermined if governments could unilaterally decide how to implement UNDRIP. The Eby government’s attempted volte-face to suspend parts of their UNDRIP-affirming legislation in response to the mining litigation is not only a political betrayal to the Indigenous Nations in that province working to advance UNDRIP but also conflicts with the direction established in recent appellate decisions. Canadian appellate courts have explained that legislative commitments, like those aimed at implementing UNDRIP, engage the Crown’s honour, which compels these governments to act upon their declarations. The Crown being bound to fulfill legislative promises related to the goal of reconciliation has been affirmed in other Indigenous rights contexts like the C-92 Reference decision (2024) concerning Indigenous child welfare. As explained in Gitxaała v. British Columbia (2025), the B.C. government’s legislative “affirmation…amounts to a binding Crown promise, namely, that the Crown will act as though the existing legal rights, obligations, principles, minimum standards and goals expressed in UNDRIP in specific relation to Indigenous peoples apply to British Columbia laws, including the common law” (at para. 161). 

Thus, the appeal of the Gitxaała v. British Columbia decision shows that legal uncertainty stems more from the state’s intransigence to maintain its decision-making processes than UNDRIP’s status in Canadian law. Unfortunately, the lack of cooperation on UNDRIP’s implementation may also produce a chilling effect that prevents the passage of UNDRIP-affirming legislation in other jurisdictions.

The conflict over process rights is just beginning and will continue to entwine both legal and political developments.

Endnotes

Depner, W. (2026, February 7). B.C. seeks to challenge landmark court ruling over mineral rights and DRIPA. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/eby-dripa-gitxaala-ruling-challenge-mineral-rights-9.7078151

British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office. (2025, September). Review of the 2018 Environmental Assessment Act [Backgrounder]. Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/environmental-assessments/act-review/eao_act_review_backgrounder.pdf

British Columbia Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals. (2025, December). Mineral Claims Consultation Framework—6 month review. Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/environmental-assessments/act-review/mineral_claims_consultation_framework__6_month_review.pdf

Gitxaała v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430.

Citation:

Do, Minh. “The Politics of Process: B.C.’s Mineral Claims Regime and the Threat of an FPIC Freeze,” Yellowhead Institute. June 02, 2026. https://yellowheadinstitute.org/2026/the-politics-of-process-b-c-s-mineral-claims-regime-and-the-threat-of-an-fpic-freeze

The post The Politics of Process: B.C.’s Mineral Claims Regime and the Threat of an FPIC Freeze appeared first on Yellowhead Institute.

“This is serious. Bellona has no financial reserves. Every kroner we raise goes directly into environmental work. When major disbursements from donors and government agencies are delayed, we have nothing to fall back on. We have cut costs and reduced staff. It is not enough. We now need help from everyone who believes Norway still needs an independent environmental organization,” said Bellona Managing Director Sveinung Rotevatn.

Help save Bellona by contributing here (see below for help)

Nearly forty years of results for Norway and the world — but there is more work to do

Since 1986, the Bellona Foundation in Oslo has worked to advance practical environmental solutions, technological innovation, and accountability in both government and industry. The organization has been a key driving force behind Norway’s adoption of electric vehicles and the development of carbon capture and storage, and today maintains offices in Norway, Brussels, Berlin, and Vilnius.

“Bellona is my life’s work. I have spent forty years building an organization that has challenged those in power, exposed environmental crime, and helped drive forward solutions. Two weeks before our 40th anniversary, I am not willing to see that work disappear without a fight,” said Bellona founder Frederic Hauge.

Hauge argues that the Bellona Foundation in Oslo will continue to play an important watchdog role in the years ahead, particularly in holding the oil and gas industry accountable during difficult economic times and in promoting ambitious new initiatives, such as large-scale restoration of Norway’s kelp forests.

“Someone also has to demonstrate that it is possible to cut emissions and make money at the same time. Otherwise, we risk losing the business community along the way. And if that happens, we will never get back to 1.5 degrees,” Hauge said.

Employees in Vilnius could face persecution by Russian authorities

One particularly serious aspect of the crisis concerns Bellona’s office in Vilnius. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Bellona evacuated key staff members from Russia for their own safety. If the organization is unable to secure continued operations, those employees could lose their residence permits and find themselves in a highly vulnerable situation.

Bellona is currently in dialogue with donors and government authorities while pursuing both short-term financing and longer-term solutions.

“We are not asking for sympathy. We are asking for support for work that is still urgently needed. The climate crisis has not been solved. Bellona must not disappear,” said Hauge.

How to donate from outside Norway

Go to the donation page: https://www.spleis.no/project/500141

1. Click “Støtt” (for Support / Donate).
2. Enter the amount you want to donate.
   (Approximate exchange rate: 100 NOK ≈ €8–9 (rates may vary).
3. You can optionally leave a message: “Vil du legge igjen en hilsen?” (Would you like to leave a message?)
   Your message will appear under “Aktivitet” (Activity) on the fundraiser page.
   
   Optional fields:
   • Navnet ditt (Valgfritt) = Your name (Optional)
   • Hilsen (Valgfritt) = Message (Optional)
4. Choose a payment method under “Betalingsalternativer” (Payment options). Available methods include:
   • Vipps (Norwegian mobile payment app)
   • Kort (Card payment)
   • Faktura (Invoice / Pay later)
5. Complete the payment and confirm your donation. You should receive a confirmation once it is successful.

The fundraiser is hosted on the Norwegian crowdfunding platform Spleis.

The post Bellona Oslo Faces Bankruptcy, Needs NOK 8 Million to Survive appeared first on Bellona.org.

Con el objetivo de fortalecer y dar visibilidad a experiencias locales que promueven la prevención y gestión responsable de residuos, la iniciativa Rutas basura cero seleccionó una serie de recorridos presenciales ejecutados por organizaciones locales en distintos países de América Latina. 

La propuesta surge en un contexto de creciente preocupación por la crisis de los residuos y los impactos ambientales, sociales y económicos asociados al actual modelo de producción y consumo. Frente a este escenario, las estrategias de basura cero han demostrado ser una alternativa efectiva para reducir la generación de residuos mediante prácticas de reducción, reúso, reciclaje y compostaje, al tiempo que promueven la justicia ambiental y el fortalecimiento de las economías locales.

En particular, los sistemas de reúso y rellenado están cobrando cada vez más relevancia como soluciones replicables y escalables para avanzar hacia comunidades más saludables y sostenibles. Sin embargo, muchas de estas experiencias continúan siendo poco conocidas fuera de sus zonas, lo que limita su potencial de incidencia y réplica.

Para revertir esta situación, el proyecto Rutas basura cero impulsa recorridos presenciales coordinados por organizaciones locales, que permiten a tomadores de decisiones, representantes de gobiernos, académicos, líderes sociales y otros actores clave conocer de primera mano iniciativas exitosas en funcionamiento.

Las rutas incluyen visitas a proyectos con al menos un año de trayectoria y resultados comprobables, vinculados a prácticas como el rellenado de envases, el lavado y reutilización de utensilios, el compostaje descentralizado y el cooperativismo. Además, cada experiencia es documentada mediante registros audiovisuales que pasan a integrar una base regional de casos de éxito.

La iniciativa busca generar espacios de intercambio entre experiencias consolidadas y actores estratégicos, así como producir materiales que contribuyan a la difusión y sistematización de aprendizajes sobre modelos basura cero en la región.

A continuación, compartimos las organizaciones e iniciativas seleccionadas que forman parte de esta primera edición de Rutas basura cero:

Quito, Ecuador: https://youtu.be/zAfFljwO-uU

Entrejardines nos lleva a la compostera y huerta comunitaria del barrio La Floresta en Quito, luego pasamos por Pure!, una empresa de turismo que comparte cómo ha adoptado prácticas de reúso y segregación en origen dentro de su oficina, y terminamos en el restaurante Pim’s donde conocemos cómo gestionan sus residuos sólidos y orgánicos. 

Zona de los Santos, Costa Rica: https://youtu.be/VTS_io9FWok

La Asociación Defensores Monumento Zona de los Santos, nos muestra cómo están trabajando para preservar una zona de alta biodiversidad a través del manejo de residuos de subproductos de procesos de cultivo de café como el que hacen en Coope Tarrazu y Coopedota. Luego terminamos con una parada en el Centro de acopio Preserve Planet (CAPP) para saber más sobre segregación de residuos y recuperación de tapas de refrescos.

Magallanes, Chile: https://youtu.be/fOl7LHwXlEg

Fundación Lenga nos traslada a la zona más austral del Chile donde iniciamos el recorrido en Compost Coiron y su proyecto de gestión de residuos orgánicos, donde además nos cuentan cómo el turismo influye en el colapso del vertedero municipal de Puerto Natales. En Punta Arenas, conocemos el laboratorio textil Puro Viento, una iniciativa de reuso que utiliza residuos textiles y gigantografías publicitarias para hacer artículos como mochilas, estuches, entre otros. Finalmente, llegamos a Puerto Williams para saber más sobre la iniciativa municipal de gestión de residuos. 

For the construction of the technical and political foundations, a team of agroecology experts from the movements, representing all regions of Brazil, has been established.

The post Brazil: The MST and Allies are Building a Social Movement-led AI Tool (IARAA) for Agroecology appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

This post is based on a talk I gave at the Ecosocialism conference in London on Saturday 30 May, about the Fare Free London campaign, in which I participate, and the wider movements of which it is part. I was on a panel on “Organising the climate movement” with Tyrone Scott of War on Want […]

The online industry feeding off the anger of young men hides a deeper structure of digital capitalism, writes Alison Phipps

The post The political economy of the manosphere appeared first on Red Pepper.

The  California High-Speed Rail Authority’s Board of Directors on Monday voted to elevate board member Stephen Kawa, a longtime former aide to Gov. Gavin Newsom, to become the governing body’s new board chair. Read more.

VENTURA, Calif. — A new daily AMTRAK Pacific Surfliner train is now connecting Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo early every morning, giving commuters an additional option, especially those traveling from Ventura to Santa Barbara Counties for work. Read more.

Once Tap Plus launches later this year, it will be available on the agencies that operate roughly 95% of public transit trips in California, but there are some notable laggards… Read more.

A sidewalk is more than just a strip of asphalt. It’s a place where countless laws collide. Those laws govern our movement, our safety, our right to free speech and our economy. They dictate who exactly is responsible for shoveling snow after a blizzard. But most communities don’t have a single agency that manages all of these competing concerns — and maybe it’s time they create one. 

Today on The Brake, we interview sidewalk law expert Michael Pollack about his new book “Sidewalk Nation: The Life and Law of America’s Most Overlooked Resource.” And in that book, he untangles the dense web of policies that shape our pedestrian spaces, which might just change the way you look at sidewalks forever. 

For an unedited transcript of this conversation (with AI typos), click here.

The company that makes the illegal stand-up electric scooter used by one of the victims of last week’s deadly head-on collision on the Queensboro Bridge bike path has added a warning label on its website after reviewers alerted the manufacturer to Streetsblog’s coverage.

Teverun — which makes the Blade GT II on which Francis Delvalle was riding on May 28 when he smashed into Dmytro Stechenko, killing them both — has since added some fine print to its website:

“All TEVERUN scooters are shipped with a speed limit of 25 km/h [15 miles per hour] for public roads. Unrestricted mode is for private or off-road use only. Always comply with local laws and wear protective gear,” it reads (you can see the small warning at the top of the webpage … if you squint).

The disclaimer could be a move to shift liability from the company to the consumer in the aftermath of the high-profile crash, one lawyer suspected.

“It’s a bit of an acknowledgement that these scooters are dangerous on the roads at higher speeds,” said Peter Beadle, a bike lawyer and a safe-streets advocate.

The scooter maker’s website added a disclaimer that the Blade GT’s 53-mph mode is not street-legal. But it still markets it as an “urban wolf.”

After Streetsblog reported the make and model of the scooter and pointed out that the device is illegal to operate on all New York City streets and bike paths, people began flooding the comment section with links to our coverage.

“You will die and kill someone else too,” one commenter, Eric, wrote before giving the scooter one-star and linking to Streetsblog.

“Perfect killing machine,” posted “Tom Smith.” “Great for killing myself and others! Just wish it could go even faster so I could end more lives.”

Scooter companies commonly falsely advertise their devices as legal by offering buyers the option of shifting to a different “mode” to violate speed limits or city rules. Many online retailers sell scooters and e-motos with “off-road” modes, as Streetsblog reported last year.

Recommended



The ‘Problem’ With E-Bikes? The Super Fast Illegal Ones
Sophia Lebowitz

October 21, 2025

The details of the state’s vehicle and traffic code don’t clearly draw a line on mode shifting. But another factor that affects the legality of an electric two-wheeler is the wattage of the motor. The VTL clearly states that bicycles with electric assist must have a motor with 750 watts of power or less. Vehicles that can be shifted into “off-road” modes with high speeds will inevitably have motors with greater wattage.

For example, the brand Ride1Up specifically calls its vehicles “moped-style e-bikes.” On its website, the company clarifies that a “moped-style e-bike” has “programming and motor capabilities that allow for a higher top speed than class 3 e-bike regulations allow. The company then adds a disclaimer that it’s only for a private course. Ride1Up markets it as a Class 2 e-bike, which legally can reach 20 miles per hour with the throttle. But the motor is 1,820 watts, which exceeds the 750-watt limit, making it illegal to ride regardless of mode.

Our Revv1 … is pre-programmed as a Class 2 e-bike, so you can ride most anywhere at 20 miles-per-hour with throttle and pedal assist. However, you can unlock the programming to reach speeds north of 28 mph. This is intended for private property only.

This agile and robust bike is tough enough to cope with the most demanding of rides. However, with its practical and sturdy design, it remains suited to any rider with a comfortable saddle, upright riding position and throttle forward use-case that provides a boost up to twenty-eight MPH or more when unlocked for “Off-Road Mode.”

The brand Ride1Up calls this a “moped-style” e-bike. Its motor is too big to be legal.

The state’s traffic code does not specify a wattage cutoff for e-scooters. But companies selling them must display maximum speed and wattage on a sticker for both scooters and e-bikes. Still, the city’s own educational materials state that the max speed capability for a stand up electric scooter is 20 miles per hour.

It’s very difficult for police officers to, at a glance, know which motorized two-wheeled vehicle is a legal electric bike or an illegal e-moto, though police agencies in Europe, where e-bikers are common and provided ample space where their riders do not have to compete with cars, don’t seem to have this problem.

Beadle pointed out that although the company added a small disclaimer to the site about its modes, the page still reads as an advertisement for the fastest settings.

“The problem is that, some of these bikes and scooters can have their modes changed so easily that of course users are going to change the mode, it’s part of the marketing,” he said.

The site still advertises the scooter as “built for street dominance” and focuses on the scooter’s max speed. The site also specifically addresses safety, saying “speed is thrilling but safety comes first,” before encouraging riders to wear a helmet (as both victims of last week’s crash were). The website also clearly markets the scooter for city use:

Its 11-inch puncture-resistant tires, high-torque motor, and stable suspension allow it to tackle uneven roads, steep inclines, and urban obstacles with ease. Whether it’s potholes, gravel, or curbs, this scooter maintains smooth, controlled performance.

“That’s not marketing to a 15-mph scooter. That’s marketing to the 53-mph,” said Beadle.

• Drunk driving kills more than 12,000 people a year in the U.S., mostly in car-centric places with little to no public transit. Studies show that there are far fewer DUI arrests in cities where imbibers can take a train home. There is a similar effect where rideshares are readily available. (Planetizen)
• People for Bikes breaks down its position on the BUILD America 250 transportation funding bill.
• Five years after the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act put $5 billion toward electric vehicle charging stations, only 98 have been built. (Government Technology)
• While raging against dangerous drivers can be cathartic, sustained activism is what actually gets things done, according to a streets.mn writer.
• Americans seem to love everything about trains except riding them. (USA Today)
• Active Towns interviewed Sara Lind, co-director of Streetsblog’s parent nonprofit Open Plans. (YouTube)
• California regulators changed the state’s cap-and-trade program in ways that will benefit fossil fuel companies. (Los Angeles Times)
• The Urbanist further explores Sound Transit’s recent vote to delay or cut back on future transit projects.
• Assaults on Charlotte trains and buses fell by 67 percent through the first three months of this year compared to the first quarter of 2025. (WFAE)
• The Utah Transit Authority further reduced fares for the elderly, but made them more complicated to pay. (Salt Lake Tribune)
• A new Maryland law opens up 300 acres of state-owned land near transit stations for developing 7,000 housing units. (Smart Cities Dive)
• Light rail on the I-5 bridge between Portland and Vancouver, Washington remains up in the air. (The Oregonian)
• The president of Cornell University backed his car into a group of students who questioned him about free speech. (The Ringer)
• Missoula won an award for best transit system of its size. (Metro)
• Backlash against bike lanes and low-emissions zones led Krakow voters to elect a new right-wing mayor. (Politico)
• Italian cities are trying to make public spaces more equitable toward women. (24 Italy)

Carbon Tracker analysis finds widespread under-reporting of automaker emissions creating hidden transition risks for investors

LONDON, 2 June, 2026 

New research from financial think tank Carbon Tracker shows that several legacy automakers carry climate-related financial risks comparable to traditional oil and gas producers. The findings are particularly relevant for Japanese OEMs ahead of the country’s AGM season, given their continued reliance on hybrid vehicles and their outsized role in global vehicle production.

The research, from financial think tank Carbon Tracker, finds that major automakers are systematically understating the emissions linked to their vehicles. Across a sample of 17 of the world’s largest OEMs, representing 80% of passenger vehicle sales, Carbon Tracker found an average discrepancy of 33% between reported and real-world emissions from vehicle use.

This “Carbon Gap” stems from widespread use of unrealistic lifetime mileage assumptions, optimistic plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV) usage estimates, and the exclusion of upstream fuel-production emissions.

Using a standardised methodology designed to reflect real-world vehicle usage, Carbon Tracker found that several automakers exhibit carbon intensity levels higher than major oil and gas companies when measured on the basis of emissions as a proportion of enterprise value (tCO₂e/EVIC).

Ben Scott, Head of Energy Demand at Carbon Tracker and co-author of the report, said: 

“Automakers are the gatekeepers of future oil consumption. Passenger vehicles are the largest source (27%) of global oil demand and every ICE or hybrid vehicle sold today locks in 10-20 years of additional consumption.  

Automakers’ flawed emissions reporting masks the reality that a dollar invested in legacy automotive firms is in many cases just as carbon intensive as a dollar invested in oil and gas.” 

Leaders and laggards 

The analysis identifies major differences both in transition strategy and emissions disclosure practices across the automotive sector, with some automakers aligning more closely with electrification trends and transparent reporting than others.

Renault and Stellantis emerged as relative leaders on emissions transparency, with reported Scope 3 emissions closely aligned with Carbon Tracker’s estimates, while companies such as BYD and BMW demonstrated substantially higher BEV sales shares than hybrid-heavy peers.

These issues are particularly relevant to Toyota, whose AGM falls on June 17. As the world’s largest automotive manufacturer by volume, with more than 10 million annual vehicle sales, Toyota maintains a hybrid-heavy strategy, selling approximately 27 hybrids for every battery electric vehicle in 2024.

Michael Wells CFA, Analyst at Carbon Tracker and co-author of the report, said: 

“Toyota’s hybrid emissions are an outlier in the sector, exceeding the total emissions of entire manufacturing groups such as BMW. Its hybrid-heavy resource allocation indicates a commitment to technology that faces obsolescence. As major markets move toward outright bans on internal combustion components, Toyota’s hybrid-heavy portfolio risks becoming a fleet of stranded assets.” 

Ken Maeda, Founder of Undertones Consulting, said:  

“Toyota’s heavy reliance on hybrids has delivered short-term sales success but carries significant long-term financial and market risks for both Toyota and the wider Japanese automotive industry. By locking in long-term oil consumption, this strategy heightens stranded asset risks at a time when global peers are accelerating electrification.”  

Mazda and Mitsubishi display the highest emissions intensities, of 10.2 and 9.9 tCO₂e/EVIC, respectively, compared with 4.0 for Shell, the highest intensity oil and gas firm featured in the report.

General Motors exhibits the sector’s largest absolute emissions gap, driven by a high-intensity product mix heavily weighted toward trucks and SUVs in the North American market, combined with the most significant disclosure deficit in the peer group. 

Subaru showed the largest relative reporting gap, with emissions potentially understated by more than 200% due to reporting assumptions that fail to reflect the high-mileage reality of its predominantly US-based fleet. 

Geopolitical Uncertainty and Consumer Lock-in

The financial risks of delaying the EV transition are being compounded by global energy shocks. The ongoing crisis in the Strait of Hormuz underscores the extreme vulnerability of the legacy automotive business model. Automakers persisting with ICE and hybrid technology are effectively locking consumers into highly volatile, inflated fuel costs for decades to come.

This exposure is particularly acute for the Japanese automotive sector. Japan is overwhelmingly dependent on foreign energy, importing more than 90% of its oil, largely from the Middle East through vulnerable chokepoints like Hormuz. By continuing to build vehicles that rely entirely on liquid fossil fuels, domestic giants like Toyota expose both their global consumer base and their home economy to structural macroeconomic instability.

Scott added: “The crisis in the Strait of Hormuz is a stark reminder that the real-world cost of driving a legacy vehicle isn’t static. When an OEM sells a hybrid or an ICE vehicle today, they aren’t just selling hardware – they are anchoring a consumer to the oil tap for the next fifteen years. In an era of acute geopolitical supply shocks, failing to decouple transport from crude oil is no longer just an environmental misstep; it is active destruction of consumer value and an unhedged risk for investors.”

Investor implications  

Carbon Tracker argues that that inconsistent and potentially understated emissions reporting creates material challenges for investors attempting to assess automaker transition risk and carbon exposure accurately.

The report finds that differing assumptions around vehicle lifetime mileage, hybrid usage and fuel-cycle emissions can materially distort reported Scope 3 Category 11 emissions, reducing comparability across issuers and potentially leading to the mispricing of carbon-intensive business models.  

Giuseppe (Joseph) Jacobelli, Managing Partner at Bourne Impact Capital Ltd and Founder of actE, said: 

“As for many other industries, carmakers failing to transition from carbon-intensive legacy assets to bankable ones face significant financial liabilities. Institutional portfolios must navigate this ‘bumpy flight’ by prioritising the economic inevitability of the green shift to prevent systemic capital erosion and asset stranding.” 

Carbon Tracker said that investors should move beyond headline emissions disclosures and scrutinise the assumptions underpinning automaker climate reporting, particularly ahead of key shareholder votes and transition-related engagements, such as Toyota’s AGM on 17 June. 

In particular it urges investors to focus on BEV Sales Share as the core transition KPI and incorporate carbon intensity (tCO₂e/EVIC) into corporate valuation models to avoid mispricing high-emission business models. 

 

Notes to editors  

The report, Oil Companies in Disguise, can be downloaded free of charge from here. 

 To arrange an interview please contact:   

Conor Quinn conor.quinn@greenhouse.agency  +44 7444 696 214 

Greenhouse Communications  TrackerGroup@greenhouse.agency     

A Japanese version of the press release is available here.

The post Legacy automakers are just as carbon-intensive as oil and gas firms, new analysis shows appeared first on Carbon Tracker Initiative.

Feeding Change at the Milken Institute recently released a report providing Food Is Medicine (FIM) stakeholders with a framework for designing, governing, and sustaining partnerships. The report, Activating the FIM Ecosystem: A Framework for Stakeholder Partnerships, seeks to help nonprofit, for-profit, and public policy actors collaborate in an increasingly complex sector.

According to the report, FIM began as a community-based response to unmet nutrition and health needs, evolved into a national movement, and has now reached a critical inflection point.

FIM programs rely on an expanding range of activities, from clinical referrals and care coordination to reimbursement, data sharing, and food delivery. Coordination requires an increasing number of stakeholders, including health care providers, community-based organizations (CBOs), participants, food retailers, funders, and transportation companies.

This growing complexity can create barriers to collaboration, the report says. FIM stakeholders interviewed for the report describe challenges including unclear roles, misaligned incentives, redundant responsibilities, uncertain payment pathways, and decision-making structures that struggle to adapt as programs evolve. This causes strained relationships, reduces efficiency, and reduces the ability to scale FIM programs.

Increasing resilience in an ever-changing FIM landscape requires thoughtful partnership design and adaptable models, Holly Freishtat, Senior Director of Feeding Change, tells Food Tank. Rather than prescribing a single model or a universal solution, the report offers a variety of tools.

The report is designed to help stakeholders quickly navigate to the sections most relevant to their objectives, sector, and stage of engagement in the FIM ecosystem, the co-authors explain. And certain sections are interactive and customizable. It was intentionally designed for stakeholders across the FIM ecosystem, Anna Lin-Schweitzer, Associate Director at Feeding Change and co-author of the report, tells Food Tank.

“We wanted to make sure that the toolkit was not designed just for one sector or just for one stakeholder, that it was going to be useful to anyone who picked it up,” Lin-Schweitzer says. “Whether they’re a nonprofit or a health plan or a food retailer, whether they have been in the FIM space for a long time or they just started.”

To develop the framework, Feeding Change conducted 43 interviews, two sector-specific working sessions, and a 40-person roundtable, while also incorporating feedback from FIM program participants. Freishtat says the resulting recommendations were grounded in qualitative analysis and stakeholder experience.

The report is organized around three themes. The first, Designing Partnership Architecture, explores a range of partnership structures applicable to a variety of goals, funding mechanisms, operation scales, and stages of development.

The Optimizing Funding Partnerships for Collaboration section, explores existing funding pathways, ensuring stakeholders are aware of their options and encouraging a diversified financing approach.

And Building Shared Understanding and Long-Term Value, focuses on challenges that commonly emerge as partnerships develop, scale, and adapt to changing circumstances. According to the report, aligning goals, responsibilities, decision-making processes, and measures of success can help organizations navigate these tensions in the long term.

Looking ahead, Lin-Schweitzer highlights the importance of cross-sector and cross-regional collaboration, which allows stakeholders to learn from one another and build on existing successes. Lin-Schweitzer also emphasizes the value of keeping program participants involved in, and at the center of, FIM discussions.

According to Freishtat, “if we want to see reduced healthcare costs and improved health and nutrition outcomes, we need to be very intentional and strategic and disciplined on how we continue to design, evolve, and grow FIM for this country.”

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Inigo De La Maza

The post Report Explores How Food Is Medicine Stakeholders Can Build Lasting Partnerships appeared first on Food Tank.

Nurses at Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital in Chicago, Ill. gave notice to their employer today that they will hold a strike for one day on June 11 to protest the administration’s retaliation against nurses who speak out about unsafe conditions.

Check out “Censored News” coverage of May 16

Protest in Utah against Energy Fuels uranium mines and mill

“CENSORED NEWS: Shut Down Energy Fuels — Uranium Mining and Radioactive Dumping on Native People”

By KAY MATTHEWS

Kit Carson Electric Cooperative CEO Luis Reyes just announced that the company has hired GZA GeoEnvironmental/Glorieta Geoscience (GZAGeoEnvironmental recently acquired Geoscience, which is based in Santa Fe) to conduct a water study of the proposed hydrogen facility in Questa. Kit Carson has only contracted for Phase 1 of that study, that states it will “assess the influence of pumping the Chevron production well (RG-14117-POD-18) on the groundwater flow conditions in the Questa, NM area.” However, the Phase I study will only develop a “three-dimensional visualization model,” which doesn’t involve well testing, drilling flow logs, measuring the rates of aquifer replenishment, and other critical water studies. If requested, Phase 2 would create “a groundwater flow model, calibrate the model, and prepare a report that summarizes the groundwater modeling work.” 

The Questa Watershed Coalition has received a detailed letter from a local hydrologist that lays down the details and requirements that a competent water study must include. The letter begins with this statement: “This will be a critically important study, and it is paramount that it be technically sound, comprehensive, and independently and impartially reviewed and validated.” The hydrologist emphasized that both Phases, 1 and 2, are necessary to “adequately predict hydrologic impacts. The visualization model should be accompanied by a conceptual model (which is basically a qualitative description of the flow system) and a quantitative water budget for all relevant hydrologic components (recharge, flux, discharge to rivers and wells, etc.) along with a clear statement of the objectives of the modeling exercise. He also stated that the 100 afy extraction rate is probably inadequate and 250 afy, the well’s adjudicated capacity, will be more likely needed. The Coalition will use the input in the letter to help assess the GeoScience study.

Questa Watershed Protectors have been asking Reyes for a comprehensive water study for months, as concerns over drought and the climate crisis are exacerbated by this year’s extreme situation. Snowpack measurements for the Sangre de Cristos are the lowest ever recorded, and both of the Questa acequias, Cabresto Lake Irrigation Community Ditch Association and Llano Community Ditch, have seen a significant loss of irrigation water. The well that will provide water for the hydrogen project is a Chevron exploratory well that they call the tailings facility water well. It’s 500 feet deep and will supposedly supply clean water for the project (the OSE will have to provide an assessment). A mile-wide study was done that said four other wells could be affected by the Chevron well, but Questa’s wells are not within that one-mile radius. A two-mile radius could affect 58 wells, including the many private wells in the community.

While GeoScience promotes its hydrogeology analyses and has worked all over the state, the president and senior hydrogeologist, Jay Lazarus, has an extensive history in the Taos area that may not bode well for an unbiased, comprehensive study of water quantity and quality in the Questa area that could be affected by the hydrogen facility. He’s been a longtime consultant for the Abeyta Water Rights Adjudication (Taos Pueblo) that resulted in a settlement in 2013. As such, he was a vocal opponent of the Public Welfare Statement that was drafted by a group of citizens as part of the Taos Regional Water Plan, back in 2006. The statement laid out the criteria for determining whether proposed water appropriations or transfers from the Taos Region to other regions and within the Taos Region from one sub-watershed to another are consistent with the public welfare.

Public welfare is one of the criteria the Office of the State Engineer is supposed to use to determine whether to approve a water transfer, but has rarely done so. That’s why the citizen committee urged that the Public Welfare Statement be incorporated into the Taos Regional Water Plan. But the parties to the Abeyta settlement raised objections to the proposed PWS, claiming it would prevent the implementation of the settlement and that it was contrary to state law. They, represented by Lazarus, wanted nothing to interfere with whatever transfers might be necessary for implementation of the controversial Abeyta Settlement.

In 2013, when Blackstone Ranch, which had acquired the historic McCarthy Ranch, “Taos’s last great grasslands” on Upper Ranchitos Road, applied to transfer just under 12-acre feet per year of surface water rights from the Alamitos Acequia to a groundwater well to irrigate landscaping around the “main-house,” a small orchard, gardens, greenhouse, and “fire-prevention pond”—which translates to 6 afy of groundwater. Their hydrogeologist, Jay Lazarus, was quite frank about the reason for the transfer: it would ensure the ranch irrigation water when there isn’t enough water in the acequia. This, of course, sets a bad precedent: As surface water continues to dry up more and more irrigators will want to pump groundwater instead. It’s already happening in southern New Mexico—and on a much larger scale than 12 afy of water—as farmers dependent on Elephant Butte Irrigation District for irrigation come up short and pump groundwater to save their crops. Texas sued, and a settlement agreement will require the retirement of thousands of acres of farmland to provide Texas with its allotted water rights under the Rio Grande Compact.

Finally, in 2025, at a public meeting about Sipapu Ski Area and Resort expansion plans, Lazarus was confronted in two claims he made as the ski area’s consultant on water quality monitoring. When asked about the ingredient surfactant, or Drift, used in snowmaking, Lazarus said that a New Mexico Environment Department study had found no impact on downstream users. The representative from the NMED corrected him that the agency was unable to test for snowmaking because surfactant is already present in the agency’s lab.

Lazarus was also challenged by Robert Templeton, a parciante from Dixon, when he made the often-touted claim that ski areas act as water reservoirs and help downstream users when the snow is released into the watershed in the spring. Templeton argued that stored water is only available during the spring runoff when the river flow is at or approaching flood conditions and is of no use to irrigators. The time that the “potentially stored” water is used for snowmaking is the exact moment when the water is needed in the river for recharge of wells and the sub-surface lands along the river’s course after the irrigation season.

.In a Taos News article Reyes was asked about allocating such a large amount of water during a time of extreme drought. His response was, “I’ve never seen it, living here [that] in a year we’ll get so much snow that it undoes, you know, 10 or 15 or 20 years of drought, but we’re not using [the water] for a while,” Reyes said. “I have faith that, like any cycle, we’ll start to get rains and moisture back, hopefully, like we did in the old days.”

The people of Questa would rather rely on a scientific assessment of what the water situation is right now before a water-guzzling project moves forward. Hopefully, that’s what they get.

RAFI is hiring an FSA Loans Technical Assistance Contractor to support farmers in the Southeast U.S. with Farm Service Agency loan programs. This remote six to 12-month contract will provide one-on-one help with farm numbers, loan applications, farm financials, loan restructuring, and borrower responsibilities. The contractor will also track cases, coordinate with RAFI staff and partners, and support farmer outreach and education.

The post Contract Opportunity: FSA Loans Technical Assistance Contractor  appeared first on RAFI.

This article Resistance is only half the equation was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

We no longer live in a world where courts reliably enforce limits on executive power; where media calls out abuse as abuse or where politicians depend on legitimacy to hold power. These conditions are eroding, and power is becoming more and more centralized. 

In the U.S., the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States in 2024 significantly expanded presidential immunity for official acts, raising concerns about accountability. Globally, ruling parties in Hungary and Poland have reshaped judicial systems through court-packing and disciplinary regimes that weaken independent checks on executive authority. And in countries such as India, new laws restrict freedom of the press. 

In response, we see a grinding pattern of reaction from pundits and resisters, but the power of centralized authority remains. Trump has retained power despite his involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, as well as his name being all over the Epstein files. Leaders in Turkey and Egypt have been accused repeatedly of inciting democratic backsliding, yet they maintain power. At the same time, ecological, economic, cultural and political crises expand. 

This moment demands more than opposition. What is needed is not just resistance against corrupt centralized systems, but to create new, local systems that restructure power so it is dispersed throughout society. Because the problem is not only that those in power abuse it. The problem is that power is concentrated in the first place.

#newsletter-block_63d9dbab8221236ed68f8cf749bded55 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_63d9dbab8221236ed68f8cf749bded55 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

The work of Gene Sharp stands apart in the field of nonviolent theory for one central reason: his understanding of power. For Sharp, justice, equality, freedom and any meaningful form of democracy do not exist simply as ideals or constitutional rights. They exist only when power is actually dispersed throughout society — embedded in the daily practices, institutions and relationships of ordinary people. Without that dispersion, democracy is little more than a substanceless claim.

Many nonviolent activists and scholars have embraced part of Sharp’s insight. They recognize that governments do not rule by force alone, but by the cooperation and support of institutions, organizations and individuals. From this perspective, power is contingent. If people withdraw their cooperation strategically and nonviolently, regimes can be forced to concede, reform or even collapse. This understanding has shaped movements across the world, from civil resistance campaigns to election protection efforts.

And yet, there is an equally important part of Sharp’s insight they are missing.

The problem of concentrated power

We are seeing how deeply dependent we have become on centralized systems that do not have our best interests in mind. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed how centralized healthcare and supply chains have become, leaving many without timely access to care and essential goods. And recurring, large-scale electrical outages, such as the 2021 Texas power crisis, show how dependent millions are on centralized grids that can fail. 

When power is concentrated — whether in governments, corporations or some fusion of the two — corruption is not an accident. It is a structural inevitability. Systems organized around concentrated power will, over time, bend toward the interests of those who hold it. Policies, resources and decision-making processes become oriented toward preserving and expanding that power, often at the expense of the broader population.

Previous Coverage

Will the real Gene Sharp please step forward?

Even the most well-intentioned leaders operate within structures that reward consolidation, control and self-preservation. For example, in an effort to make the U.S. government more efficient and effective, President Barack Obama reinstated presidential authority, ushering in an era of consolidated executive power. The result is an unfortunate recurring pattern: Inequality deepens, accountability weakens and public institutions drift away from the people they are meant to serve.

When decision-making is centralized, the distance between those who hold power and those affected by it widens, often to the point where meaningful feedback becomes filtered, delayed or ignored altogether. Over time, this creates an environment where leaders are not only insulated from consequences, but are also operating with an increasingly distorted understanding of reality. Citizens, in turn, become disengaged or disempowered, sensing that their voices carry little weight within systems designed to concentrate authority rather than distribute it. The result is not just corruption in the traditional sense, but a deeper erosion of responsiveness, adaptability and trust — conditions without which meaningful reform from within is exceedingly difficult.

Activism as external correction

In response to the erosion of democracy and the increasing inaccessibility of necessities like food, healthcare and housing, activists organize. They build networks to monitor elections, serve as watchdogs on corporate behavior, defend civil rights and provide essential services where governments fail. These efforts are vital. They protect people from immediate harm and at times, win meaningful reforms.

But rather than transforming how power is organized within society, these efforts often function as external correctives. They attempt to restrain abuse, mitigate harm and fill gaps left by failing institutions. In doing so, they implicitly accept the continued existence of centralized power structures, even as they resist their consequences.

This creates a paradox. Activists devote enormous energy to building parallel systems. Yet the underlying structures that concentrate that power remain largely intact.

The burden of endless resistance

Over time, this dynamic places an unsustainable burden on civil society. Activists become responsible for preventing abuse by those in power, holding institutions accountable and providing services that those institutions fail to deliver.

This is, in effect, a permanent state of resistance. It is also a reactive posture. Each new harm requires a new response, a new organization, a new campaign. The work expands endlessly, while the root cause — the concentration of power — remains unaddressed. 

One example of this is the environmental justice movement, particularly the coordinated pushback against federal rollbacks. Coalitions such as We Are Still In and the U.S. Climate Alliance mobilize states, municipalities, businesses and civil society to uphold the commitments of the Paris Agreement. Additionally, environmental groups repeatedly challenge deregulation, while states advance their own regulations. This created a multi-level infrastructure of resistance. Yet, even these efforts are forced into a constant defensive posture, expending vast energy to block or mitigate harms rather than dismantling underlying structures that enable federally sanctioned reversals of policy. 

While it’s true that it matters who holds office — we know that Trump’s policies are far more harmful to the environment than were Biden’s — this distinction does not resolve the deeper problem. The structure of centralized power remains unchanged, meaning that environmental policy can be rapidly advanced or dismantled with each shift in administration. As a result, even hard-won gains remain fragile. This volatility prevents the kind of long-term, consistent action required to address the climate crisis at scale. 

The question that follows is both simple and profound: Why do we accept a system in which people must constantly organize to defend themselves against the very structures meant to serve them?

Reimagining the mainstream structure

If we take Sharp’s theory of power seriously, the answer cannot lie solely in resistance.

Withdrawing cooperation from unjust systems is a vital tool. But it is only half of the equation. The other half is construction: building a society in which power is distributed from the outset, rather than concentrated and then contested.

Previous Coverage

Why building inspiring alternatives is necessary to counter authoritarianism

This requires a shift in orientation. Instead of asking how to better monitor and constrain centralized power, we must ask how to redesign the structures that produce it. What would it mean to organize political, economic and social systems so that decision-making authority is broadly shared? So that communities have direct control over the conditions of their lives? So that power is not something granted from above, but something exercised collectively?

In such a system, the need for vast external networks of resistance would diminish. Not because injustice would disappear, but because the mechanisms for addressing it would be built into the fabric of society itself.

And this is key. When power is disbursed throughout society into local communities — for example, when food is grown locally, housing is owned by cooperatives, health care is operated by neighborhood clinics, and so on — then community members can withdraw from or reduce their dependence on centralized, mainstream agribusinesses or real estate corporations or medical institutions. Empowering communities to take care of more and more of their own essential needs is a grassroots process that restructures how power is distributed in society. And the more communities that are empowered by these local initiatives, the more dispersed and decentralized power becomes. 

Addressing concerns of centralized power

The task ahead then is not only to resist concentrated power, but to replace it with distributed forms of governance and organization. To shift from a model of external oversight to one of internal design. In other words, the goal is not merely to challenge power, but to reconfigure it.

Around the world, communities are already doing this. They are realizing Sharp’s theory of decentralized power. By developing community gardens, housing coops and health centers, people can opt out of mainstream institutions and systems, greatly weakening the power those systems have over them. This is not merely an effort to fill in gaps. Instead, it deliberately shifts how power is distributed in society. Because, as dependency decreases, so does the ability of centralized authorities to command compliance. What emerges is not a parallel safety net, but a reconfiguration of power itself, one in which legitimacy flows from local and collective production and governance rather than from those who live far away.  

In the examples below, we see communities around the world building local control over essential needs such as housing, food, health care, energy, technology and safety. Each project that enables people to meet these needs locally — rather than through international corporations or federally controlled institutions — is a step toward local empowerment. As more communities adopt this approach, power becomes increasingly distributed across society.

Housing: Community control over land and shelter A Zapatista slogan on a mural in the autonomous town of Marinaleda, Spain, translates “the land belongs to those who work it.” (Turismo de la Provincia de Sevilla)

In southern Spain, the town of Marinaleda has created a radically different housing model. Following the election of Mayor Manuel Sánchez Gordillo — a labor leader pivotal to the town’s fight for self-governance — Marinaleda expropriated a significant amount of land from the state and launched a de-commodified housing system. Residents build their homes on collectively owned land; the town supplies construction materials and labor while occupants pay minimal mortgage payments tied to maintenance rather than profit. While operating within a broader national system, the town has effectively removed housing from market forces, placing control in the hands of the community itself.

In Jackson, Mississippi, Cooperation Jackson is working to build a solidarity economy rooted in worker ownership and community land control. Based on the model of Mondragon, Spain, residents are reducing dependence on both state and corporate systems.

Food: Feeding communities without external control

Few examples demonstrate community power more clearly than the Zapatista Autonomous Communities in Chiapas, Mexico. There, Indigenous communities have built autonomous systems of governance and agriculture, producing food collectively on communal land. In food forests, families and collectives farm milpa plots (corn, beans and squash) alongside cooperative coffee production. These systems operate independently of state programs and corporate supply chains, ensuring that communities can feed themselves on their own terms.

Community control goes beyond food. Volunteer medical professionals provide training for locals and help operate small community clinics that provide basic care, vaccinations and maternal support. Local community-run schools provide education that includes Indigenous languages, history and agroecology. And security as well as justice issues are brought before community assemblies. 

Power is dispersed by rooting it in the community itself and sustaining it through ongoing practice rather than reliance on institutions organized and controlled far from the people they are meant to serve. This reduces residents’ vulnerability to political shifts, market fluctuations and external control. Participation is embedded into daily life, making autonomy a lived reality rather than an abstract ideal. 

Likewise, in India, Navdanya, a woman- and Earth-centered movement to protect biodiversity, supports networks of farmers who preserve and share native seeds, rejecting dependence on corporate-controlled agriculture. Though funded in part by donations from corporate partners, they maintain seed sovereignty, which allows them to retain control over the very foundation of food production.

Health care: Care as a collective practice

Across many Indigenous communities, healers and midwives operate within community structures where knowledge is passed through generations. Care is often relational, land-based and spiritually integrated. For example, within the Navajo Nation, Diné traditional healing is an active, community-embedded system. And in Maya Ixil regions, comadronas (traditional midwives) guide pregnancy, birth and postpartum care using herbal remedies and spiritual practices. While outside funding supports this work, it nevertheless provides examples of how traditional and alternative healing can replace total dependence on mainstream health care systems. 

These health care practices are examples of mutual aid networks — many of which have expanded rapidly in recent years — in which communities can organize care without institutional backing. Funded through direct contributions and relationships of trust, these networks provide medical support, caregiving and essential supplies outside formal systems.

Energy and technology: Infrastructure in community hands

Energy and technology are often treated as inherently centralized, but communities are challenging that assumption. For example, Barefoot College trains local residents in the Global South — often women — to build and maintain solar infrastructure themselves, placing both knowledge and power in community hands.

Digital infrastructure is also being reclaimed. Community-built mesh networks, such as Guifi.net, provide locally owned internet systems governed by its users rather than corporate providers. These networks demonstrate that even complex technological systems can be decentralized and collectively managed.

Safety: Community-based security and governance

In the Indigenous Mexican town of Cherán, residents expelled external political authorities and established their own system of governance and security. Community patrols replaced state police, and decision-making shifted to local assemblies.

Similarly, within Zapatista communities, systems of justice and conflict resolution are handled collectively, without reliance on external courts or enforcement structures. Safety, in these contexts, emerges from shared responsibility rather than imposed authority.

From meeting needs to redistributing power

It’s worth noting that not all community-based efforts are entirely self-sufficient. Some, like community land trusts, rely heavily on ongoing government funding. And Germany’s energy democracy movement makes use of public grants and corporate support. Additionally, community safety groups provide programs that interrupt violence and reduce harm, but still depend on local police. Yet, they are models for systems and structures that can and sometimes do transition to total independence.

What unites these examples is not perfection but a desire to reduce their dependence on centralized institutions. They demonstrate that communities can meet essential needs through systems they control. That reduction matters because dependence is the mechanism through which power is maintained.

#support-block_35839f63b588c0a2d3a6cde949b8dc6a { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

A fair critique of decentralizing power is that it can fragment capacity and deepen inequality between communities. Not all localities begin with the same resources, skills or cohesion, and without coordination, decentralization can produce uneven outcomes, duplication of effort or gaps in essential services, especially in moments that require large-scale response. It can also risk exclusion or local capture if decision making is dominated by a few voices. 

These are real concerns. But they point to the need for networking, not isolation. They reveal the importance of shared standards, mutual aid across communities and federated structures that allow coordination without recentralizing authority. In this model, power is distributed, but not disconnected. Communities retain control over their systems while participating in broader networks that pool knowledge, redistribute resources and maintain accountability.

When communities no longer rely on governments or corporations for housing, food, energy or care, their participation in those systems diminishes. And their withdrawal is not merely tactical. Rather, it becomes a condition of life that rebuilds societal power structures from the ground up. 

And when this is multiplied across communities, something larger begins to emerge: a society in which power is not concentrated and contested, but dispersed and practiced. This is what it means to take Gene Sharp seriously — not only to withdraw cooperation from unjust systems, but to build the capacity to live without them. 

This article Resistance is only half the equation was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.